Agenda item - BH2021/01845 - Brighton College, Eastern Road, Brighton - Full Planning

          MAJOR APPLICATIONS

1.       The Planning Manager introduced the application by reference to photographs, plans and elevational drawings. A presentation was given setting out the rationale for the officer report recommendation.

2.       It was noted that there was a substantial volume of historic planning and listed building applications associated withBrighton College, the surrounding area of which was predominantly residential in character. The application site extended to 0.45 ha and incorporated the Lester Building, Science Block and existing performing arts centre at the centre of the site. These buildings were 20th century additions and were not listed. A planning application and listed building application to demolish these buildings to accommodate the new performing arts centre (PAC) had been approved on 10 August 2021.

3.       The principle of providing a new PAC building on site had been established by the earlier consents which had permitted the demolition of the existing PAC, science block and part of the Lester building and the erection of new music and drama school buildings. These had only been partially implemented, the new music building had been constructed but the PAC, science block and Lester building had not been demolished and a new drama building had not been erected, therefore, these were considered to be extant and represented a fall-back position for the college. Reference was also made to the most recent 2021 permissions, so the principle of demolition of these buildings had also already been established.

4.       This application proposed the construction of a new performing arts building (following the proposed demolition of the existing buildings on the site, approved under consents BH2021/00843 & BH2021/00844) comprising the following:

·       A 400 seat multi-functional theatre

·       Multiple dance and drama studios

·       A new 6^th Form Centre

·       Space for social gathering incorporating a café/dining area

·       Classrooms for English and Drama

5.       The principle of a replacement performing arts building was considered acceptable and had been established by the previous planning consents relating to the site. The proposed performing arts building was considered to be of a high architectural quality, and the design and materials take cues from adjacent buildings.  The scale of the proposed building was considerable and would have a strong presence on the campus.  However, the fact that the proposal would open up physical and visual links between the Home Ground and the Grade II Listed Main Building would be a considerable heritage benefit. It was therefore considered that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm and when this limited harm is weighed against the (albeit limited) community benefits, on balance the scheme was considered to be acceptable. A robust justification of the size requirements of the building has also been submitted by the applicant. Therefore, approval was recommended.

          Questions

6.       Councillor Ebel sought clarification regarding whether the stage area was fully accessible. It was confirmed that the backstage area provided for disabled access, the only area which was not accessible was the balcony area where to do so would have required additional volume to the roof.

7.       Councillor Yates stated that he was confused as whilst the most recent approval had indicated that the open ground within the site was to be retained, what was now proposed indicted an intensification of the site. He sought clarification regarding arrangements to be put into place to accommodate 200 – 300 people attending for performances and the impact this could have on the neighbouring area. Even if the number of events during the year were limited he considered that appropriate travel plan arrangements needed to be in place. Detail regarding the number of nights that the theatre would be in operation would also helpful.

8.       Councillor Bagaeen referred to the proposed design of the replacement buildings which were bound to increase the ecological footprint of the site. Whilst there were elements of the scheme which were to be commended he considered that more information was required in order for Members to be assured that the resultant building was fit for purpose and, regarding the potential use of the theatre.

9.       The Senior Planning Officer explained that the proposals would meet BREAM excellent standards. The long–term benefits of the of the buildings environmental performance had been assessed in considering the scheme.

10.      Councillor Shanks sought clarification whether any Community infrastructure Levy was being sought. Councillor Moonan sought confirmation regarding local community use. Earlier permissions had referenced this and in her view more detail was required, this theatre building seemed to have significantly greater capacity than the previously approved scheme. Councillor Moonan also considered that more detail was also required regarding the impact of additional activity in the neighbouring vicinity generated by those attending performances at the college. Councillor Moonan considered that it would be appropriate for the final Travel Plan to go to the Members’ Working Group for approval. Also, stating that it would be helpful for a images to made available indicating the impact of the theatre when viewed from the neighbouring street scene.

11.      The Planning Manager explained that it was anticipated that revised access arrangements would replace rather than increase existing highway movements.

12.      Councillor Childs stated that the site was in his ward referring to disruption that residents had suffered over the years in consequence of building works and movements associated with the construction process. He sought confirmation whether restrictions could be placed on times when activity could take place. The Planning Manager confirmed that Condition 5 referred to requirements in this respect. Councillor Childs stated that precise hours did not appear to be set out and asked if these conditions could be made more robust or brought back to Committee if they proved not to be. It was explained that any conditions applied needed to be reasonable.

          Debate and Decision to Defer

13.      The Chair, Councillor Littman, noted that the discussion which had taken place indicated that whilst Members clearly considered that there was much of merit in the proposals put forward and that they were therefore not minded to refuse permission, there were also matters on which they appeared to require further information in order to inform their decision making. As that appeared to be the general consensus he sought views of the Committee on whether it would be appropriate to defer the decision making process.

14.      Councillor Janio stated that he was satisfied that the application was acceptable as put forward and was minded to vote to grant minded to grant permission.

15.      Councillor Shanks requested that the above application be deferred in order for the applicants to provide more information in respect of the issues discussed. This was seconded by Councillor Moonan.

16.      A vote was taken and on a vote of 8 to1 members voted to defer determining the application pending receipt of the further information/clarification referred to above, then to be brought back to a future meeting for decision.

17.      In summary Members required more detailed information in respect of:

          Community provision;

          Disabled access – whether amendments could result in the theatre being fully accessible;

          Appearance of the proposed scheme, particularly the theatre from and impact on the neighbouring street scene;

          Travel Plan – to come forward to the Members Working Group;

          Detail in respect of this application in the context of previous permissions and the differences between them.

36.1    RESOLVED – That the Committee defer consideration of the above application pending receipt of the additional information and clarification requested by Members and referred to above.

          Note: Having declared a prejudicial interest in the above application Councillor Fishleigh left the meeting and took no part in discussion regarding the application.